Jon and the Night’s Watch vow

[Corvo the Crow]

3 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Completely disagree. As I said upthread, Jon questions whether he is breaking his oath or not because just like everyone else, he’s been hearing the ‘take no part’ mantra all his life. We know what he’s thinking, we’re in his head. So ultimately because he isn’t sure if he is breaking his vows or not, he decides not to take any watchmen with him. It’s just the solution he finds that allows him to do what he thinks is right while not putting his watch brothers at risk of being accused of oathbreaking. 

7 hours ago, frenin said:

Jon was very wrong to not order his brethren to join him because

a) it made him look indecisive and weak to his brothers, they will lose heart

b) He was in his rights to answer those threat

c) As a true son of the North, he shouldn't hesitated even for a second because he was honor bound to protect his guests. These are the kind of values that still mean something among those people who live north of the Neck, as it has been demonstrated by Wyman Manderly. I found his behaviour here very uncharacteristic for a Northman, though there are many moments in Jon's career Ned would have been proud, this is definitely not one of them. Sure, he shouldn't have gone rushing in like his uncle Brandon, he should've weighed his options and prepared but there was no question of whether or not he should be fighting the Boltons. Bowen could've been justified in his actions if he indeed was doing it for the Watch, for saving it's honor by not hesitating whether they should defend guests and taking over the reins and confronting Boltons decisively.

[kissdbyfire]

2 hours ago, frenin said:

Glad to see you around here again tho.

Thank you!

ps: I think we pretty much disagree on most things we were discussing… I won’t go over everything again b/c I would be basically repeating the same arguments, and we’d get stuck in a circular discussion.

 

[kissdbyfire]

51 minutes ago, Corvo the Crow said:

Jon was very wrong to not order his brethren to join him because

a) it made him look indecisive and weak to his brothers, they will lose heart

b) He was in his rights to answer those threat

c) As a true son of the North, he shouldn't hesitated even for a second because he was honor bound to protect his guests. These are the kind of values that still mean something among those people who live north of the Neck, as it has been demonstrated by Wyman Manderly. I found his behaviour here very uncharacteristic for a Northman, though there are many moments in Jon's career Ned would have been proud, this is definitely not one of them. Sure, he shouldn't have gone rushing in like his uncle Brandon, he should've weighed his options and prepared but there was no question of whether or not he should be fighting the Boltons. Bowen could've been justified in his actions if he indeed was doing it for the Watch, for saving it's honor by not hesitating whether they should defend guests and taking over the reins and confronting Boltons decisively.

I agree that he should have answered Ramsay’s threats and marched, but I don’t agree about ordering the black brothers to march with him. I think he did the right thing. And he was going to go to Hardhome w/ the watchmen, but when he gets the PL he decides to confront Ramsay but keeps the black brothers on the Hardhome mission, the mission he had assigned them to from the start. 

[Corvo the Crow]

45 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I agree that he should have answered Ramsay’s threats and marched, but I don’t agree about ordering the black brothers to march with him. I think he did the right thing. And he was going to go to Hardhome w/ the watchmen, but when he gets the PL he decides to confront Ramsay but keeps the black brothers on the Hardhome mission, the mission he had assigned them to from the start. 

He could use the Hardhome as an excuse to try and not involve his brothers in the actual fight, just as he uses the Bolton letter as an excuse to involve himself in Arya situation. But remember, Jon is the Lord there, LCs aren't given the title Lord Commander for no reason when they could just've been named commander, knight commander etc.

Quote

"Many of my brothers have proved themselves in battle. It is not enough. Some matters cannot be settled with a battleaxe. Maester Aemon will understand that, though Cotter Pyke does not. The Lord Commander of the Night's Watch is a lord, first and foremost. He must be able to treat with other lords . . . and with kings as well. He must be a man worthy of respect." Ser Denys leaned forward. "We are the sons of great lords, you and I. We know the importance of birth, blood, and that early training that can ne'er be replaced. I was a squire at twelve, a knight at eighteen, a champion at two-and-twenty. I have been the commander at the Shadow Tower for thirty-three years. Blood, birth, and training have fitted me to deal with kings. Pyke . . . well, did you hear him this morning, asking if His Grace would wipe his bottom? Samwell, it is not my habit to speak unkindly of my brothers, but let us be frank . . . the ironborn are a race of pirates and thieves, and Cotter Pyke was raping and murdering when he was still half a boy. Maester Harmune reads and writes his letters, and has for years. No, loath as I am to disappoint Maester Aemon, I could not in honor stand aside for Pyke of Eastwatch."

Jon is a Lord, he should've acted a lord, he must be able to treat with other lords as one of them. If Lord A is aggresive towards Lord B, threatens him, his lands, his guests that he is obliged to protect, then what will Lord B do?  Just ask his namesake, Jon Arryn. 

With or without Arya, as a lord Jon must be involved here and involve his brothers as well. I said in another thread, Jon was tested with Arya twice, first was with Mance and Melisandre and since he had no say in there and Mel was just doing a courtesy involving him, he passed that one. The second one was Bolton letter and he failed it miserably. It is only because that Ramsay threatens to attack and asks not just for fArya, his bride that he has a right to ask back, but Selyse, Shireen, Melisandre, their retainers and soldiers, Val, Mance's child and even Theon is someone he doesn't have a right to ask back. Jon fails to fail because it wasn't just Arya who he wanted.

[kissdbyfire]

On 12/26/2022 at 4:35 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

He could use the Hardhome as an excuse to try and not involve his brothers in the actual fight, just as he uses the Bolton letter as an excuse to involve himself in Arya situation. But remember, Jon is the Lord there, LCs aren't given the title Lord Commander for no reason when they could just've been named commander, knight commander etc.

Why would he need an excuse? There’s nothing in the Hardhome rescue mission that isn’t within the purview of the Watch. 
 

And I disagree again that the PL is used as an excuse to go after Ramsay. Does he want to? Of course he does. But Ramsay did threaten Jon, the Watch and all the Watch’s guests. So it’s more the case that Ramsay provided the perfect motive for Jon to legitimately do what he wanted to do. 

On 12/26/2022 at 4:35 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

Jon is a Lord, he should've acted a lord, he must be able to treat with other lords as one of them. If Lord A is aggresive towards Lord B, threatens him, his lands, his guests that he is obliged to protect, then what will Lord B do?  Just ask his namesake, Jon Arryn. 

With or without Arya, as a lord Jon must be involved here and involve his brothers as well. I said in another thread, Jon was tested with Arya twice, first was with Mance and Melisandre and since he had no say in there and Mel was just doing a courtesy involving him, he passed that one. The second one was Bolton letter and he failed it miserably. It is only because that Ramsay threatens to attack and asks not just for fArya, his bride that he has a right to ask back, but Selyse, Shireen, Melisandre, their retainers and soldiers, Val, Mance's child and even Theon is someone he doesn't have a right to ask back. Jon fails to fail because it wasn't just Arya who he wanted.

Again, no. I don’t understand why you’re assigning so much weight to the ‘lord factor’. In this case it’s just a title and it doesn’t mean that he must drag his sworn brothers into  this. Mind you, he could very well have done it, since the threat to the Watch is real and credible. But his decision not to do it doesn’t diminish him in any way IMO. 

[LongRider]

On 12/25/2022 at 10:02 AM, kissdbyfire said:

And not getting involved in the affairs of the realm is not only not part of the vow, but may even be detrimental to the Watch’s ability to fulfill its purpose of protecting the realms of men. More on that further down. 

The ‘Watch takes no part’ is likely a tradition that was adopted at some point after one or, more likely, several LCs harmed the Watch and its main purpose by ostensibly taking part - not to protect humanity but rather to serve their own interests. 

I agree that takes no part is a tradition, not a vow.  Well, Janos Slynt did break tradition, as he was aligned with Tywin and kept him informed of happenings at the Wall and schemed with Tywin to become LC.  The point is breaking tradition was done by members of the NW before Jon received Ramsay's letter.

On 12/25/2022 at 10:52 AM, KingEuronGreyjoy said:

Jon’s vows have and probably will, continue to hold him back from keeping the spirit of his oath, and part of his story arc will be coming to terms with breaking oaths to save people I’m sure.

The problem I have with this is, if Jon is dead, he is then released from his vows and is no longer a member of the Night Watch.  “Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death……I shall live and die at my post.”  If he is brought back, he won't be alive, but a revenant, an un-dead.  As such, he's not bound by the NW vows, nor is he a member of the NW, because he's dead.   If you want to see Jon's arc play out as you suggest, he needs to be alive. 

[Julia H.]

On 12/25/2022 at 7:02 PM, kissdbyfire said:

Happy [insert holiday of choice] everyone!
 

Let's start by looking at the Night's Watch vow.

AGoT - Jon VI
They said the words together, as the last light faded in the west and grey day became black night.

"Hear my words, and bear witness to my vow," they recited, their voices filling the twilit grove. "Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post. I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."
The woods fell silent. "You knelt as boys," Bowen Marsh intoned solemnly. "Rise now as men of the Night's Watch."

Lots of metaphorical language used to say the sworn brothers are there to protect humanity from whatever poses a threat to it. But what isn’t there is also important. And what isn't there is anything about ‘taking no part’. 

Now, many of us readers (and some characters) believe the NW has forgotten its true purpose. There are at least three factors that play a part in this.

- the Watch has had its share of bad LCs who wanted power for themselves. 

- the fact that the Others haven’t been seen in millennia.

- and finally, the above leads to the Watch becoming little more than a penal colony.

Now the Watch must find its true purpose again because the threat of the Others is clear, present, and imminent.

And not getting involved in the affairs of the realm is not only not part of the vow, but may even be detrimental to the Watch’s ability to fulfill its purpose of protecting the realms of men. More on that further down. 

The ‘Watch takes no part’ is likely a tradition that was adopted at some point after one or, more likely, several LCs harmed the Watch and its main purpose by ostensibly taking part - not to protect humanity but rather to serve their own interests. 

Jon, the free folk, and several of the brothers know of the looming threat of the WWs; there is no doubt it is coming. Reports of what's happening at Hardhome and from the fleeing free folk highlight the urgency. Those left north of the Wall will be wightified and become pawns in the army of the undead coming for the realms of men, and leaving them to this fate goes directly against the actual vow.
So we see here the decision to send Pyke to rescue the people at Hardhome, and later Tormund with black brothers, to try to save as many as possible was not only the right one morally, but also exactly what the NW vow requires.

Then there's the decision to march on Winterfell to confront Ramsay. And again, the decision is right, because Ramsay threatened the Watch directly and its LC, on top of threatening several of the Watch's guests. All these threats, if fulfilled, would at best impair and at worst prevent the Watch's ability to, again, defend the realms of men.

And again, the decision was the right one, and is not only totally within the purview of the vow but what was necessary to uphold it.

Let's try a hypothetical to help illustrate this.

Let's say someone really bad like Euron conquers everything south of the Neck, Barrowton and White Harbor. He crowns himself King of Westeros and is now preparing to march farther north to finish conquering the rest of Westeros; one of his goals is to bring down the Wall and form an alliance with the Others. The remaining houses and clans either prepare to defend themselves or take refuge at the Wall. Should the Watch do something? Should they send those seeking refuge at the Wall back? After all, Euron is king of Westeros and the Watch shouldn't interfere in the affairs of the realm, right? No sarcasm font, so I'll spell it out: wrong. 

I agree with every single word of this. Nice to see you posting again! 

"The Watch takes no part" is a traditional principle but it is not part of the vow, i.e., likely not part of the founding principles, and, perhaps even more importantly, it has not been added to the vows every since, even though we have good reason to suppose that the vow has been extended since the founding of the organization. 

The vows are a manifestation of the purpose of the Night's Watch - to watch over and protect the realms of men - and the parts that probably were added at a later point specify what the watchmen must give up in order to serve this purpose. Apparently, no one has thought it advisable to include the "takes no part" principle. The question is why.

In my opinion, "the Watch takes no part" is a very generalized and oversimplified wording of certain principles that are indeed essential. The Night's Watch must not leave behind the defence of the realms of men in order to participate - for love or money - in the petty fights of men. The Watch must not become a military threat against the people of the realm and must not become the paid or unpaid private army of any lord. The "hold no lands" and "wear no crowns" clauses are there precisely to stop the personal political ambitions of any watchmen - ambitions that could be the cause of unnecessary or harmful "taking part". Also, vowing to serve on the Wall for a lifetime means they must not serve any other goals but those of the protection of the realm, and in this sense the spirit of the vows is - or should be - much more important than the actual continuous physical presence of any particular watchmen on the Wall or even north of Mole's Town.

Adding the very general and oversimplified idea of "taking no part" at all to the vows would result in practically undefined and unreasonable restrictions that could, in certain situations, prevent the organization from effectively carrying out its primary duty. No one has defined what exactly "taking part" means to start with, so it is open to personal intepretation. Was Yoren taking part when he saved the life of the orphan child of a lord of the realm, a long-time benefactor of the Night's Watch, or was he just doing what was decent and humane at that moment?

To add a few hypothetical examples: Does self-defence count as "taking part"? If a lord that is at war with another lord of the realm makes an alliance with the Others, can the Night's Watch fight against this lord or does it also count as taking part? What if there is a political vacuum in the North and there is no one to organize the country south of the Wall while the Others are attacking? Should the Night's Watch take over the ruling of the realm if it is clearly in the interest of the military defence and the survival of the realm? Those are some of the more extreme situations where a literal interpretation of the "takes no part" principle could be directly detrimental to carrying out the most important Night's Watch task, but there can be any number of more complex situations where the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch must make a political decision. Should he, in such cases, worry about a largely undefined traditional principle that can be interpreted in various ways or should he consider what best serves the single most important purpose of the Night's Watch, the protection of the realms of men?

The answers to these questions may well be the reason why including the simplified "takes no part" clause in the vows has not been seriously considered. And since Westeros has no tradition of writing carefully composed legal documents, nor would it be very easy to give a definition of harmful taking part that would be useful in every situation that could arise over millennia, it is left to the Lord Commander to decide to what extent the Night's Watch should take part in any given political situation with the single most important goal - the protection of the realms of men - in mind. 

 

 

[Julia H.]

On 12/26/2022 at 6:54 PM, Corvo the Crow said:

Jon was very wrong to not order his brethren to join him because

a) it made him look indecisive and weak to his brothers, they will lose heart

b) He was in his rights to answer those threat

c) As a true son of the North, he shouldn't hesitated even for a second because he was honor bound to protect his guests. These are the kind of values that still mean something among those people who live north of the Neck, as it has been demonstrated by Wyman Manderly. I found his behaviour here very uncharacteristic for a Northman, though there are many moments in Jon's career Ned would have been proud, this is definitely not one of them. Sure, he shouldn't have gone rushing in like his uncle Brandon, he should've weighed his options and prepared but there was no question of whether or not he should be fighting the Boltons. Bowen could've been justified in his actions if he indeed was doing it for the Watch, for saving it's honor by not hesitating whether they should defend guests and taking over the reins and confronting Boltons decisively.

I agree with most of what you say here, however, I think Jon wanted to protect the NW and that was why he did not order them to join him against the Boltons. Obviously, if the wildlings had not been there, he would have had no choice, but given this "alternative possibility", he was concerned with the protection of the Watch in more ways than one. He wanted to protect the Watch against Ramsay's army and he also wanted to save them (as an organization) from the political odium of a confrontation with the men of the realm because the realm needed the Night's Watch. If there was any blame involved, he wanted to take it all upon himself - even though he did not believe what he was doing was wrong. Nor did he look indecisive or weak, in my opinion, as he gave them clear orders - the wildling would ride with him against Ramsay, whereas the Watch would go on the Hardhome mission.  

 

12 hours ago, LongRider said:

I agree that takes no part is a tradition, not a vow.  Well, Janos Slynt did break tradition, as he was aligned with Tywin and kept him informed of happenings at the Wall and schemed with Tywin to become LC.  The point is breaking tradition was done by members of the NW before Jon received Ramsay's letter.

Yes, any semblance of neutrality had long been gone by this time. 

12 hours ago, LongRider said:

The problem I have with this is, if Jon is dead, he is then released from his vows and is no longer a member of the Night Watch.  “Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death……I shall live and die at my post.”  If he is brought back, he won't be alive, but a revenant, an un-dead.  As such, he's not bound by the NW vows, nor is he a member of the NW, because he's dead.   If you want to see Jon's arc play out as you suggest, he needs to be alive. 

His arc - whatever it is - will be much, much more interesting if he stays alive and fully human. 

[Rondo]

On 12/26/2022 at 10:57 AM, SeanF said:

I would say the contrary.  There is nothing praiseworthy about strictly adhering to a vow, when it leads one into dishonour.

Robb Stark broke his oath to Walder Frey.  There was nothing honorable about that.  It was Robb being a dick.  Jon got the watch involved into a political conflict with House Bolton.  This is something that watch had been wise enough to avoid until Jon came along.  There was nothing honorable about Jon sending Mance to look for Arya.  

[SeanF]

59 minutes ago, Rondo said:

Robb Stark broke his oath to Walder Frey.  There was nothing honorable about that.  It was Robb being a dick.  Jon got the watch involved into a political conflict with House Bolton.  This is something that watch had been wise enough to avoid until Jon came along.  There was nothing honorable about Jon sending Mance to look for Arya.  

Robb gave no oath.

He did break a promise, and he offered to make amends. That offer was accepted, by a man who violated all laws to murder him and his retainers.

Fighting House Bolton is the duty of any decent human being.

[kissdbyfire]

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

I agree with every single word of this. Nice to see you posting again! 
 

Thank you & thank you!

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

“The Watch takes no part" is a traditional principle but it is not part of the vow, i.e., likely not part of the founding principles, and, perhaps even more importantly, it has not been added to the vows every since, even though we have good reason to suppose that the vow has been extended since the founding of the organization. 

The vows are a manifestation of the purpose of the Night's Watch - to watch over and protect the realms of men - and the parts that probably were added at a later point specify what the watchmen must give up in order to serve this purpose. Apparently, no one has thought it advisable to include the "takes no part" principle. The question is why.

In my opinion, "the Watch takes no part" is a very generalized and oversimplified wording of certain principles that are indeed essential. The Night's Watch must not leave behind the defence of the realms of men in order to participate - for love or money - in the petty fights of men. The Watch must not become a military threat against the people of the realm and must not become the paid or unpaid private army of any lord. The "hold no lands" and "wear no crowns" clauses are there precisely to stop the personal political ambitions of any watchmen - ambitions that could be the cause of unnecessary or harmful "taking part". Also, vowing to serve on the Wall for a lifetime means they must not serve any other goals but those of the protection of the realm, and in this sense the spirit of the vows is - or should be - much more important than the actual continuous physical presence of any particular watchmen on the Wall or even north of Mole's Town.

Yes, agree wholeheartedly. And specifically what you said about certain things having been added to the vow at some point after the original vow was created. Not only the language but the tone is different. The first part, which could have been added later, uses much more straightforward and direct language. It’s like a directive, something that you would find in a book of instructions, ‘do this, not that’. 

“Night gathers, and now my watch begins. It shall not end until my death. I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children. I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.”

And the second part, which could be older, and even much older, uses metaphorical language w/ no absolute ‘dos and don’ts’, but it captures perfectly what I imagine the true purpose of the NW to be. 
 

“I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come."

You can even argue that the use of  plural throughout seems to indicate that the purpose oF the NW is to be wherever the threat is, watcher on the walls,  realms of men, etc.

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

Adding the very general and oversimplified idea of "taking no part" at all to the vows would result in practically undefined and unreasonable restrictions that could, in certain situations, prevent the organization from effectively carrying out its primary duty. No one has defined what exactly "taking part" means to start with, so it is open to personal intepretation. Was Yoren taking part when he saved the life of the orphan child of a lord of the realm, a long-time benefactor of the Night's Watch, or was he just doing what was decent and humane at that moment?

Great point about Yoren saving Arya. To me it definitely means he ‘took part’ since she was wanted by the Crown/Cersei and he knew how bad the situation was between the Starks and Lannisters at that point. It also 100% means he did the right thing. And not only because of the ties between the Watch and house Stark, but simply because he was a man in a position to save a child and he did, end of. 

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

To add a few hypothetical examples: Does self-defence count as "taking part"? If a lord that is at war with another lord of the realm makes an alliance with the Others, can the Night's Watch fight against this lord or does it also count as taking part? What if there is a political vacuum in the North and there is no one to organize the country south of the Wall while the Others are attacking? Should the Night's Watch take over the ruling of the realm if it is clearly in the interest of the military defence and the survival of the realm? Those are some of the more extreme situations where a literal interpretation of the "takes no part" principle could be directly detrimental to carrying out the most important Night's Watch task, but there can be any number of more complex situations where the Lord Commander of the Night's Watch must make a political decision. Should he, in such cases, worry about a largely undefined traditional principle that can be interpreted in various ways or should he consider what best serves the single most important purpose of the Night's Watch, the protection of the realms of men?

Yes to everything. I used a hypothetical in the OP as well, as I was trying to illustrate exactly this type of scenario. 
 

3 hours ago, Julia H. said:

The answers to these questions may well be the reason why including the simplified "takes no part" clause in the vows has not been seriously considered. And since Westeros has no tradition of writing carefully composed legal documents, nor would it be very easy to give a definition of harmful taking part that would be useful in every situation that could arise over millennia, it is left to the Lord Commander to decide to what extent the Night's Watch should take part in any given political situation with the single most important goal - the protection of the realms of men - in mind. 

Yes, absolutely. Protecting the realms of men is the foremost duty of the NW, the paramount reason for its existence, it is the NW raison d’être. 
And then we hit another snag… because different people - both in universe and readers - will have different interpretations of what truly constitutes defending the realms of men. 
For the likes of Marsh, Selyse and a few others, it seems the main concern is saving their own skin. Selyse’s ‘let them die’ is later echoed by Marsh. And they know of the threat of the Others. And still, they’re not only willing to let thousands die but don’t seem to care that all these thousands will be wightified. Their bigotry is so ingrained that they become myopic to the risk to themselves if this happens. 
We see Jon struggling to figure out what is the right thing to do throughout ADwD. Most if not all the decisions he struggles with are tied with the concept of ‘protecting the realms of men’. I hadn’t thought of the passage below in a long time, but your post reminded me of it. I love it, so ta. 
It’s roughly halfway through ADwD, and I think it’s where the notion of what protecting the realms of men means is clearly established in Jon’s head. And how perfect is it that he slips into Ghost, prays to the Old Gods, and has his prayer answered? 

ADwD, Jon VII

“One last thing remained before they could depart: the thing that they had come for. Iron Emmett called forth his charges, and as the rest of the company watched from a respectful distance, they knelt before the weirwoods. The last light of day was gone by then; the only light came from the stars above and the faint red glow of the dying fire in the center of the grove.

With their black hoods and thick black cowls, the six might have been carved from shadow. Their voices rose together, small against the vastness of the night. “Night gathers, and now my watch begins,” they said, as thousands had said before them. Satin’s voice was sweet as song, Horse’s hoarse and halting, Arron’s a nervous squeak. “It shall not end until my death.”

May those deaths be long in coming. Jon Snow sank to one knee in the snow. Gods of my fathers, protect these men. And Arya too, my little sister, wherever she might be. I pray you, let Mance find her and bring her safe to me.

“I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children,” the recruits promised, in voices that echoed back through years and centuries. “I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.”

Gods of the wood, grant me the strength to do the same, Jon Snow prayed silently. Give me the wisdom to know what must be done and the courage to do it.

 “I am the sword in the darkness,” said the six, and it seemed to Jon as though their voices were changing, growing stronger, more certain. “I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men.”

The shield that guards the realms of men. Ghost nuzzled up against his shoulder, and Jon draped an arm around him. He could smell Horse’s unwashed breeches, the sweet scent Satin combed into his beard, the rank sharp smell of fear, the giant’s overpowering musk. He could hear the beating of his own heart. When he looked across the grove at the woman with her child, the two greybeards, the Hornfoot man with his maimed feet, all he saw was men.

“I pledge my life and honor to the Night’s Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.”

 

 

[Julia H.]

22 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

We see Jon struggling to figure out what is the right thing to do throughout ADwD. Most if not all the decisions he struggles with are tied with the concept of ‘protecting the realms of men’. I hadn’t thought of the passage below in a long time, but your post reminded me of it. I love it, so ta. 
It’s roughly halfway through ADwD, and I think it’s where the notion of what protecting the realms of men means is clearly established in Jon’s head. And how perfect is it that he slips into Ghost, prays to the Old Gods, and has his prayer answered? 

ADwD, Jon VII

“One last thing remained before they could depart: the thing that they had come for. Iron Emmett called forth his charges, and as the rest of the company watched from a respectful distance, they knelt before the weirwoods. The last light of day was gone by then; the only light came from the stars above and the faint red glow of the dying fire in the center of the grove.

With their black hoods and thick black cowls, the six might have been carved from shadow. Their voices rose together, small against the vastness of the night. “Night gathers, and now my watch begins,” they said, as thousands had said before them. Satin’s voice was sweet as song, Horse’s hoarse and halting, Arron’s a nervous squeak. “It shall not end until my death.”

May those deaths be long in coming. Jon Snow sank to one knee in the snow. Gods of my fathers, protect these men. And Arya too, my little sister, wherever she might be. I pray you, let Mance find her and bring her safe to me.

“I shall take no wife, hold no lands, father no children,” the recruits promised, in voices that echoed back through years and centuries. “I shall wear no crowns and win no glory. I shall live and die at my post.”

Gods of the wood, grant me the strength to do the same, Jon Snow prayed silently. Give me the wisdom to know what must be done and the courage to do it.

 “I am the sword in the darkness,” said the six, and it seemed to Jon as though their voices were changing, growing stronger, more certain. “I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men.”

The shield that guards the realms of men. Ghost nuzzled up against his shoulder, and Jon draped an arm around him. He could smell Horse’s unwashed breeches, the sweet scent Satin combed into his beard, the rank sharp smell of fear, the giant’s overpowering musk. He could hear the beating of his own heart. When he looked across the grove at the woman with her child, the two greybeards, the Hornfoot man with his maimed feet, all he saw was men.

“I pledge my life and honor to the Night’s Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.”

 

 

There was a thread about favourite moments in ASOIAF and this was my post. I think this is the defining moment for Jon.

[kissdbyfire]

21 minutes ago, Julia H. said:

There was a thread about favourite moments in ASOIAF and this was my post. I think this is the defining moment for Jon.

Yes! The scene is not only incredibly beautiful with its specific imagery and the feelings and emotions it conveys, but so very rich in terms of understanding where Jon is and where he’s going. I absolutely adore it!  

[LongRider]

32 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Yes! The scene is not only incredibly beautiful with its specific imagery and the feelings and emotions it conveys, but so very rich in terms of understanding where Jon is and where he’s going. I absolutely adore it!  

Jon's time spent with Ygritte and the wildings was not wasted, as he learned that though the saw different things in the same stars, they were only people after all.  

[Groo]

On 12/29/2022 at 3:09 PM, kissdbyfire said:

And then we hit another snag… because different people - both in universe and readers - will have different interpretations of what truly constitutes defending the realms of men. 

This is an excellent point. If you take out the metaphors, flowery language, and the list of don'ts, the vows are just

I shall live and die at my post. I am the watcher on the walls, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men.

That's surprisingly vague when you think about it. No mention of the Others, giants, or wildings. No defining the realms of men. For example, the Watch predates the Andals who were clearly foreign invaders of Westeros. Could the Watch have been used to fight against the Andals? Who exactly decides anyways? The Watch has been around for thousands of years but there's only been a single unifying king for the last 300 years. When there were lots of little kings who was deciding what "guarding the realms of men" meant?

[kissdbyfire]

1 minute ago, Groo said:

This is an excellent point. If you take out the metaphors, flowery language, and the list of don'ts, the vows are just

I shall live and die at my post. I am the watcher on the walls, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men.

That's surprisingly vague when you think about it. No mention of the Others, giants, or wildings. No defining the realms of men. For example, the Watch predates the Andals who were clearly foreign invaders of Westeros. Could the Watch have been used to fight against the Andals? Who exactly decides anyways? The Watch has been around for thousands of years but there's only been a single unifying king for the last 300 years. When there were lots of little kings who was deciding what "guarding the realms of men" meant?

I think the purpose of the Watch is what is stated in what could be the older part of the vow, or the orginal vow, as it were:

 I am the sword in the darkness. I am the watcher on the walls. I am the fire that burns against the cold, the light that brings the dawn, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men. I pledge my life and honor to the Night's Watch, for this night and all the nights to come.

In other words, defending and protecting humanity and life, everything else is a distraction. I don't think the NW would have fought the Andals during the invasion, since they never really made it past Moat Cailin. 

[Groo]

25 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don't think the NW would have fought the Andals during the invasion, since they never really made it past Moat Cailin. 

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I wasn't speculating about whether that might have happened. I was posing a hypothetical to illustrate the inherent vagueness of the vows.

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Groo said:

This is an excellent point. If you take out the metaphors, flowery language, and the list of don'ts, the vows are just

I shall live and die at my post. I am the watcher on the walls, the horn that wakes the sleepers, the shield that guards the realms of men.

That's surprisingly vague when you think about it. No mention of the Others, giants, or wildings. No defining the realms of men. For example, the Watch predates the Andals who were clearly foreign invaders of Westeros. Could the Watch have been used to fight against the Andals? Who exactly decides anyways? The Watch has been around for thousands of years but there's only been a single unifying king for the last 300 years. When there were lots of little kings who was deciding what "guarding the realms of men" meant?

Seems the Rat Cook at the Nightfort believed it was perfectly ok to prevent an Andal king of having a dynasty of heirs We are after all told that the cannibalism wasn't wrong, and apparently so isn't messing with an invader's dynasty... it was the guest right the gods punished the Rat Cook for. And only that.

So guest right takes precedence over this tradition of neutrality.

And that neutrality only ever made sense as a tradition as long as there were petty kingdoms or at least 7 different kingdoms. No king could really be a threat on his own then (not if the NW standing army was 10k strong. We can infer this by how long it took before Brandon the Breaker made a move against the NK and not along but with Joramun. Brandon the Breaker was a King of Winter, and the NK (if he indeed was the 13th LC) would have lived about 150-200 years after the LN, and I think Kings of Winter was a title for Stark kings when the North was still a set of various petty kingdoms. Makes sense they only started to call themselves King in the North after they had unified the North. So, basically during that era and even a unified North the NW rarely if ever had to fear any kingdom's army could overcome them. Brandon the Breaker didn't do it alone either, but in unision with Yoramun;

It becomes an impossibility to uphold neutrality as a tradition in a unified 7 kingdoms when one single king can mess with the LP of the North, or send an army bigger of several kingdoms agains the NW, or send assassins because the LC is a bastard son of someone whose head they chopped off, or can choke any aid.